Lake, Bar. v King, Ar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 85 E.R. 128
COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Distinguished, Wason v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 85. See Proctor v. Webster, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 113.
[120] de teem. sancti hil. anno regni regis car. II. 19 & 20. 20. lake, bar. versus king, ar. Hil. 19 & 20 Car. II. Reg. Rol. 1179. [Distinguished, Wasmi v. Walter, 1868, L. R. 4 Q. B. 85. See Proctor v. Webster, 1885, 16 Q. B. D. 113.] Middlesex to wit.-Be it remembred that heretofore, to wit, in the term of St. Michael last past, before our lord the King at Westminster, came Sir Edward Lake Bart. Doctor of Laws, by Thomas Walpoole his attorney, and brought here into the Court of our said lord the King, then there, his certain bill against Edward King, Esq. in the custody of the marshal, &c. of a plea of trespass upon the case : and there are pledges of prosecution, to wit, John Doe and Richard Roe : which said bill follows in these words, to wit; Middlesex, to wit, Sir Edward Lake, Bart. Doctor of Laws, complains of Edward King, Esq. being in the custody of the marshal of the Marshalsea of our lord the King before the King himself; for that whereas he the said Sir Edward Lake, for six years and more now last past, hath been and is still a doctor of laws, and vicar-general in spiritualities, and principal official of the Bishop of Lincoln for the time being, in and throughout the whole diocese of Lincoln, lawfully appointed ; in which said office, he the said Sir Edward Lake, during the whole time aforesaid, truly, justly, faithfully, and honestly behaved, had, and governed himself, and lived and continued unspotted, unhurt, untouched, and unsuspected of and by any kind of extortion, corruption, oppression, or injustice whatsoever, or any other such hurtful crime, and has always hitherto led and fol-[121]-lowed a pious and honest course of life; yet the said Edward King, well knowing the premises, but maliciously contriving and intending unjustly to aggrieve him the said Sir Edward Lake, and not only to hurt, traduce, and injure him in his good name, fame, credit, and reputation, bub also to bring him into disgrace and infamy, and to make him run the risk of losing his said office, and to vex and utterly to ruin him, of his malice aforethought, and without any just or probable cause,'.on the 1st day of December, in the 18th year of the reign of our said lord the now King, at Westminster, in the said county of Middlesex, did cause to be printed, and did deliver, publish, and disperse to and among divers subjects of our said lord the now King, a certain false, malicious, scandalous, and infamous writing and libel of and concerning the said Sir Edward Lake, in the execution of his said office, the tenor * of which said writing and libel is * See 1 Salk. 324, Rex v. Bear. 2 Salk. 417. S. C. 2 Salk. 660, Reg. v. Dmke.(a) (a) From which it appears that the word "tenor" binds the party to set out the very words of the libel. See also 3 B. & A. 503, Wright v. Clements, where it was held that, setting out a libel "in substance as follows," was bad in arrest of judgment; and it was stated by the Court that the word "tenor" binds the party to set out the very words of the libel. [See post, p. 242, notes to Craft v. £oite.] It seems that the safest mode of declaring is, to state that the defendant published "a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning the said plaintiff; containing therein the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matter following of and concerning the said plaintiff, that is to say," and then to set out the libel with proper innuendoes. And if different parts of the same publication be selected which are not consecutive, the words should be "in one part of which said libel is contained lWM8.8AUND.iaa. HIL. 19 AND 20 CAR. II. REGIS 129 in the form following; that is to say, " To the honourable the Committee of Parliament for grievances, the humble petition of Edward King of Gray's Inn, in the county of Middlesex, Esquire, sheweth, that Sir Edward Lake, Baronet, and official to the Bishop and Archdeacon of Lincoln, John Joynes surrogate, John Proctor, Samuel Lawson, Christopher Lake, and Thomas Winter, ministers and under officers of the said official, by colour of their authority, have, by divers and sundry ways and fashions, committed high offences against His Majesty's laws, Crown, and dignity, and most grievously vexed, oppressed, arid impoverished His Majesty's subjects, within the diocese and county of Lincoln, in these particulars following: First, your petitioner being a counsellor at law, and having delivered his opinion, in the year one thousand six hundred and sixty-three, to some of his clients, that no ecclesiastical officer could by the laws of the land, form or contrive any new oath, or give any such to any churchwardens or others, to present or confess any thing, or to accuse themselves of any crime whereby they may be liable to any pain or punishment, or impose any articles of inquiry upon them, at their visitations, for their own lucre and profit, the said Sir Edward Lake and John Joynes, John Proctor, Samuel Lawson, Christopher Lake, and Thomas Winter, by combination amongst themselves, cited your petitioner into the Spiritual Court at Lincoln, for suing forth prohibitions out of His Majesty's Courts at Westminster, and in contempt of His Majesty's laws, illegally tendered an oath kc officio to your petitioner to answer divers feigned and false suggestions, framed of their own fancy, denied your petitioner, after his appearance, a copy of the said suggestion, presumed to excommunicate your petitioner for not taking the said oath, and refused to absolve him or obey His Majesty's writ of prohibition, until an attachment was awarded against the said Sir Edward Lake for his contempt, [122] by the Barons of the Exchequer, to his great damage and vexation. Secondly, The said Sir Edward Lake and the aforesaid ecclesiastical officers, in contempt of the laws of the land, and for their own revenge, cited your petitioner, and his tenants of Ashbv, in the county of Lincoln, at their will and pleasures, without any due accusations or presentments against them, to appear from time to time before Sir Edward Lake, at remote places, to take an oath against their wills repugnant to the laws of the land, and by means of such practices illegally excommunicated your petitioner and his tenants several times, to their grievous vexation, damage, and expence. Thirdly, the said Sir Edward Lake, being official as aforesaid, by colour of his authority, and for his singular profit, and further oppression and vexation of your petitioner and his tenants, illegally signified their aforesaid excommunications illegally denounced by himself, into His Majesty's Court of Chancery, and thereupon sued forth writs de excommunicato capiendo against divers of your petitioner's tenants, by colour whereof the said Sir Edward Lake, and his ministers aforesaid, extorted from one Kobert Chevin, your petitioner's tenant, the sum of three pounds thirteen shillings and four-pence, and from one Thomas Townrow, another of your petitioner's tenants, a bond of twenty pounds, in discharge of the particular sums mentioned in a schedule hereunto annexed, which the said Sir Edward and his officers pretended were due unto them ; and the said Sir the false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory matter following of and concerning the said plaintiff," then the first extract should be set out; and afterwards the declaration should proceed, "and in another part of which said libel is contained," &c. &c. See the observations of Lord Ellenborough C.J. in 1 Camp. 353, Tabert v. Tipper. Where the sense is not altered by the intermediate matter omitted, this mode of declaring is not absolutely necessary, but it is safer in all cases. Ibid. [See 6 Bing. 451, Rutherford v. Evans. 4 Moo. & P. 163, S. C.j If the sense be altered by the omission of any part, the count will be bad : as where in the declaration it appeared that the passage declared or contained the sentiments of the defendant, but certain references were omitted, which showed the passage to contain the sentiments of another to whom the defendant referred, the variance was held fatal. 5 B. & A. 615, Cartwright v. Wright. So, where by the declaration, the libel appeared to contain the defendant's own assertions, and on production it professed to state the speech of a member of Parliament, the variance was held fatal. 13 East, 554, Bell v. Byrne. [See also 10 B. & C. 263, M'Phersm v. Daniels. 5 Mann. & R. 251. S. C. 2 Mann. & Gr. 561, Smith v. Knowelden. 2 Scott, N. E. 657, S. C.] K. B. xiv.-5 130 LAKE V. KING 1 VMS. SAUND. 123. Edward gives out in speeches that he will in like manner compel Anthony Bates, Thomas Wilkinson, and others of your petitioner's tenants, to compound with him for great aums of money not due by law, to their great oppression and impoverishing. Fourthly, The said Sir Edward Lake, and his aforesaid ministers, caused your petitioner in September last to be cited into the Arches to hear himself excommunicated, in case your petitioner should refuse to pay eighteen shillings to the aforesaid John Proctor, not due by law; as may appear by the copy of the citation left with your petitioner. Fifthly, The said Sir Edward Lake and his aforesaid ministers, at their visitation, imposed a book of articles of inquiry, and an oath ex officio upon the churchwardens of the respective towns, parishes, and hamlets, within the county of Lincoln, inforcing them to buy the same at extraordinary rates, by colour whereof they exacted and extorted great sums from them; and, not therewith content, compelled the churchwardens to attend their clerk to write their presentments, and for the doing of the same exacted great and illegal fees; and such as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flint, Gent., one, Company against Pike, &
...repeating of such slander is not done in the course of the administration of justice, and therefore is not privileged. In Lake v. King (1 Saund. 120), the reprinting of a correct copy of a petition to the House of Commons, which had been printed for the use of the members, was held to be il......